Claims workflow mapping
Locate where AI, automation, external providers and human judgment enter the claims lifecycle.
Evidence-led · Remote-first · Jurisdiction-neutral core
When AI touches a claim, a fraud signal, a reserve recommendation, a document workflow or an external legal network, the control question is whether the insurer can later explain what happened from evidence rather than memory.
Control model
The assessment is scoped to evidence, governance and operational control. It does not convert a jurisdiction-neutral review into an unsupported claim of local legal compliance.
Locate where AI, automation, external providers and human judgment enter the claims lifecycle.
Test whether material recommendations and actions can be reconstructed from inputs, outputs, versions, exceptions and human decisions.
Check when staff can challenge, stop or override automated outputs and whether that intervention is recorded.
Assess third-party dependencies, change control, data handling, evidence availability and operational exit risk.
Review permissions and action boundaries when AI agents can call tools, access repositories or alter workflow state.
Examine how AI use by outside counsel can be governed and evidenced without assuming that a contractual clause alone creates control.
Evidence before assertion
A control is stronger when the organisation can show what happened from records: the relevant system, source material, AI-assisted output, human intervention, exception path and final accountable action. Tracewarden separates fact, inference, limitation and remediation so findings remain tied to the evidence actually reviewed.
Related assessment paths
Next step
Tracewarden can scope a focused assessment around a decision path, control question or vendor dependency and define the evidence needed before the review begins.